Sudbury and Global Warming: What the Town Can Do
Posted by Carl Elkin
Q. Should America best address Global Warming on the
a) individual level
b) town/city level
c) state level
d) national level?
The need to reduce our CO2 emissions, already overwhelming, keeps getting more urgent. In 2007, scientists learned that reality of Global Warming is far worse than their worse-case scenarios in a variety of areas, including rate of Arctic ice loss and the rate of Carbon emissions growth. So far as I know, there have been no positive surprises this year.
So my answer is e) all of the above.
It may at first seem that we are caught between an irresistible force of global warming and the immovable object of our political reality. The lifestyle changes that we must make to control and reduce our CO2 emissions may seem politically impossible in a country with roads dominated by SUVs and a government run by George Bush. The necessary economic changes may seem impossible in an economy whose financial sector is driven by the desire for short-term profits and whose less-fortunate members increasingly feel the affects of rising costs of healthcare, food and fuel.
So we need to be creative.
There are many things we can do– on all levels– that will significantly reduce our emissions that will cost us little or nothing and will minimally impact our life styles.
I have drafted a plan for how the Town of Sudbury could significantly reduce the emissions of town residents. The plan is revenue neutral,– it won’t cost the Town a cent, it won’t affect tax rates. The most important parts of the plan are concern with incentivizing and encouraging residents to buy their electricity from NSTAR Green, thus replacing coal-fired power with windpower, and zero-ing out a non-trivial portion of town emissions. Another part of the plan outputs how we will work with utilities to measure our emissions and track our progress. Other parts outline additional conservation measures the town can implement, and show how the Town can bring about various changes in outlook.
I believe this plan (which, BTW, needs a snappy name) should both 1) make a measurable dent in our emissions) and 2) be politically feasible to implement. I would like to see it passed. (Passing anything would be a big step forward. Heck, even a town-wide debate would enormously raise consciousness.)
So I am asking for help. The first kind of help that is needed is feedback: suggestions for improvement, what works/doesn’t work, criticism, etc. Actually, please give whatever suggestions you want: the only ground rule I have is that you can’t make suggestions that will force the town to spend money.
Recall that New England towns practice one of the purest forms of Democracy found anywhere in the world– major decisions are debated and decided by whichever citizens attend Town Meeting. I believe it is very much in that spirit for Sudbury citizens to use an online forum open to all to to discuss and plan a town response to Global Warming.
Once we wind up with something which enough people agree is useful and politically feasible, then we will go from there.
The document describing this plan can be found here. It’s a Word doc, several pages long, and will take you a while to read. Please forgive my wordiness.
None of this diminishes the urgent need for emissions reduction at the individual, state or national level. The solution can only come from several different levels. I hope we can provide part of it right here in Sudbury.
PS Excellent op-ed by Bill McKibben in Saturday’s Washington Post if you need more motivation.
on October 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I like the ideas, but then I like any idea to make our town more sustainable, even if it costs some money. I also think I represent the minority in Sudbury ( think that there’s about 20 of us in town
I think there are many who couldn’t be bothered to conserve anything, even if you paid them. They feel that they are entitled to, and have earned the lifestyle that they have, and that’s what capitalism’s all about. The ones who will take advantage of incentives, are the ones who would do what they can even without an incentive. I’m not meaning to be pessimistic, because as I said I think these are good ideas. I’m just not sure they will reach those who need to be reached, and I’m at a loss for how to do that…
on October 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Thanks for your comments. I hear what you’re saying, but I am optimistic that this could reach even the people you describe. I think there are two areas where I need to defend my program: 1) whether Sudbury could be expected to pass such a program, and 2) whether it would work if passed. Taking the latter issue first:
-Repeatedly getting $25 fines for leaving lights on gets really annoying after a while. I think that would persuade people to just write a larger check to the utilities (for wind) and feel good about it than pay a bunch of annoying fines.
-The Park & Rec programs are very oversubscribed– for my age-group (families with young kids) they typically fill up in a day. Giving renewable subscribers a 1 day (or even 2 hour) advantage would be a large incentive for some very popular programs.
-Publishing color-coded maps of which neighborhoods are emitting more than others could excite people’s competitive instincts.
So I think this program, if enacted, might make a significant dent.
I also think its politically feasible. Who would oppose it?
-Not the anti-tax crowd– its hard to rally such folks against a revenue-neutral proposal.
-Not a NIMBY group. There are no backyards involved.
-Not a limited-government group. The only arguments I can see them making are 1) it infringes on their sacred right to shine lights in broad daylight, or 2) unfairly deprives them of access to government services. Somehow, I can’t really see limited-government types making either argument with a straight face.
By contrast, I think there is large (and growing) support to “do something” about Global Warming, especially if that something is painless. (see this poll released today ) I think this plan offers that. So its not hard for me to imagine some future version of it getting a majority vote at next April’s Town Meeting.
Public opinion is turning. We need to seize the moment.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
I’ve only scanned the document, but I wanted to respond to the last couple of comments. While I think that Dean is overly pessimistic–incentives do work–I think that you might be underestimating the degree to which environmental opposition is driven purely by resentment. There’s nothing necessarily “conservative” about standing against environmental reform. Indeed, into the early 1970s, republicans were often leading environmentalists. But since then, standing against environmentalism = thwarting liberalism. Without knowing Sudbury’s politics–I’m Californian–I suspect that the $25 fine for using lights during the day will be taken as a direct attack on property rights–definitely a sacred right, going far beyond just shining lights–and an easy way to characterize the whole endeavor as government intrusiveness. Remember, back in the 1990s there was an entire furor over the census bureau asking some people if they had indoor plumbing–although the raw data would remain closed for 75 years!–prompting Trent Lott to tell people not to even bother to fill out the form. Sure, the it might sound kooky–but battling kooks takes a lot of energy.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 am
Oh, and names:
Sudbury Climate Change Strategy, which abbreviates as:
SuCCS — success.
(BTW, the spell check doesn’t recognize Sudbury!)
on October 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Joshua,
Thanks for your comments. I love the name SuCCS.. think I will steal that.
I hear what you’re saying about motivations of a certain part of the conservative movement. Actually, great Science Fiction writer (and now political blogger) David Brin wrote a thought-provoking essay A Movement Based on Hate making similar points to yours.
However, I don’t think this is relevant to Sudbury. For one thing, we already have a similar policy in place. Due to low-rain conditions, there is currently an “odd-even” water ban in place. Because I live on the even side of the street, I am NOT allowed to water MY LAWN with the water I PAY FOR tomorrow (or other odd-numbered days). If the drought gets worse, I won’t be allowed to water it on even-numbered days, either. I don’t know how popular this policy is, but I haven’t read any complaints about it in the local paper making arguments similar to those you are concerned about.
This is Massachusetts, and while we’re not quite as liberal as often portrayed in the media, we do have far fewer unreasonable conservatives than most other states. I’ve only been in town 4 years so I don’t know town politics very well yet, but most opposition to town initiatives seems to be anti-tax (some ideological conservatives but more from senior citizens with limited incomes voting their pocketbooks) and NIMBY. I don’t think we have too many movement conservatives, so I have a hard time imagining that a sizable portion of the town will rally for the right to shine lights in broad daylight.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
One extra note.. just saw that the front page of the online edition of today’s NY Times has an article entitled “Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts; Scientists are unnerved by this summer’s massive polar ice melt, its implications and their ability to predict it.” with a cool, interactive graphic of the shrinking ice cap.
The contents of the article will not be much of a surprise to readers of this blog. However, I believe this image will come to be seen as a tipping point in the politics of global warming response (which is why I included a variation on the title page of SuCCS). Global warming used to be a problem that might affect our kids; now the Times publishes front page photos about how it is changing the way our planet looks.
Public opinion is moving. More and more people want solutions. Let’s give them one– Let’s not shy away because a few might disagree.
on October 7th, 2007 at 12:09 am
I guess I would have a few questions before I would go too far comparing this to the water ban.
Here are some of my questions:
1) How often are the water ban fines actually enforced?
2) The fines are imposed by the Sudbury Water District. Is the Sudbury Water District actually part of the town government or is it a separate entity?
3) How did the rules re: the water bans come into existence? Was this something that was voted on at Town Meeting? Or was this something that was voted on by the board of the Sudbury Water District? Also, when did this happen? (Sudbury’s population has changed quite dramatically in the last 40 years or so).
My suspicion, though I do not know this for sure, is that the Sudbury Water District is basically a separate entity from the town and is essentially a utility provider (ala NSTAR). And my guess is that the rules for the water ban didn’t have to go through Town Meeting.
And because of this, I think there is a huge difference.
I think a utility has an ability to do things that are “unpopular” that would be *far* more difficult to do through the town.
I think that if Sudbury had a municipal light and power plant (like Concord does), you could push this sort of thing through them.
But I think that trying to get the town government to become “energy police” is going to be very, very difficult. Not only because I don’t think it would get through Town Meeting, but I also think that the Selectmen would push back for two reasons:
1) They are not going to want to take on additional responsibilities for enforcement.
2) I think this would be incredibly politically unpopular and they are not going to tie themselves to something that is not very popular.
I will give what I think is a better analogy. The town *could* establish fines for people who are throwing recyclable materials into their trash (which is against the law by the way). And it is something I am trying to push. But I also know it is going to be a very hard push. I am sure that there is going to be pushback by consumers who say “Hell, no.” And I am sure that there will be a lot of resistance by the town officials who will be concerned about how we enforce this. If we can’t get through a mandatory recycling law, I am skeptical that we could get through a light fine.
Just some quick thoughts…
-Eric
on October 7th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Good points, Eric. I actually just read a bit on water district history. Your suspicions about the water district are partly correct, but overall I think the full picture strengthens the analogy to a water ban.
There’s a nice history of the water district at http://www.sudburyleague.com/programs.htm (search the page for “In 1936 Sudbury voters…”
Here are the key points:
-Sudbury water district IS independent of town government, but IS NOT a utility. It’s executive consists three water commissioners, elected (staggering terms) by Sudbury voters. Its legislative body is whichever Sudbury residents show up to its annual meeting (typically, not very many). So its overall structure is pretty much the same as town gov’t.
-So, yes, an elected body (and elected officials) did institute a water ban. And although it didn’t go through town meeting, it did go through a process essentially identical to town meeting. And it could be repealed at any point, but hasn’t been. (I’m actually not sure what the fine is for disobeying, nor how much it is enforced.)
-The ban on water in droughts (unsurprisingly) does NOT apply to people with their own wells (just as the fines I proposed would not apply to people using clean energy.) (Incidentally, these bans happen once every few years. There’s one in effect at the moment).
__
As for your other points, the ban on lights is designed to a) require virtually no effort by the town to enforce, and b) virtually never be payed.
A) It is very easy to prove a violation. All it takes to prove is a picture, and everyone has cell phones or camera phones these days. These pictures do NOT have to be taken by town employees. (One could imagine someone driving around town, taking pictures on the cell phone and emailing them to a special town address.) All a town employee has to do is to verify the picture shows a daytime light, and send out a letter. This could be something they do once every month or two. (If even this proves too much of a burden, the selectmen could find some volunteers to do this. I think we’re talking 10-20 hours of work per year, total.) So overall this will require virtually no effort by current town employees.
B) I want to stress that this fine will seldom be payed, which should significantly cut down on its unpopularity with voters. Having NSTAR Green is like having your own well– it makes you immune. Buying a couple of packets of CFLs on your way home from work and faxing in the receipt gets you off the hook. Almost no one’s ever going to pay this thing. (But they will get NSTAR Green and buy the CFLs, which is the point.)
So overall, I see this as something that will 1) require very little effort by town government, 2) require essentially no taxpayer money, 3) generate no hassle whatsoever for citizens except losing the right to shine lights in broad daylight (in some cases).
And the benefits could be enormous. Increasing the fraction of the town that uses NSTAR Green by 5% of the town (275 households) will reduce CO2 emissions by 3.4 million pounds / year (back of the envelope calculation). That’s equivalent to (and complementary to) an awful lot of 5000 pound diets, green buildings, or composting. And if we can get 10% of the town…
Ever since Gore’s movie, I think people will want to “do something” about global warming, particularly if its cheap and painless. The Selectmen may well push back– if so, we’ll listen and try to address their concerns. That’s how politics works. I think its definitely worth a try. Maybe the ban on outside lights will fall by the wayside– its hardly the most important part. But I’d prefer to leave it in, to see if the selectmen object. And if it ever goes to town meeting, it could be included as a separate article, so its defeat wouldn’t bring down the rest.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments.
Carl
on October 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Carl, I am not as confident that this is as little effort for the town as you do. For example, what if I am sent a fine and I claim that the house pictured is not mine? I don’t think that some of the more vocal town meeting regulars will be happy with the idea of potentially paying a fine that cannot be appealed. I suppose you could require that the photograph have the house number in it, but for many houses in Sudbury, that is really hard to do.
Also, which branch of the town government is responsible for sending out fine notices and collecting the revenue? Are they also responsible for collecting my receipt and waiving the fine? These sorts of questions are likely to come up at town meeting.
It may be worth talking to a representative of town government to find out how these sorts of regulations and fines generally work. It is possible they will have a better idea of what is and is not feasible or even a better approach to the same end. Granted, I have only lived in Sudbury for 5 years, but I can’t remember an article that passed at town meeting without the backing of the Selectmen and the relevant committee. For better or worse, I think a lot of residents trust the Selectmen and relevant committees to be working for the better interest of the town. If the Selectman speak against an article that people are not emotionally invested in, that article won’t pass.
I agree with you that getting people to cut electricity usage is important. However, it seems every year some group comes to town meeting with an article that hasn’t been fully considered. At best, they lose a year of progress when they are voted down and need to wait for the next town meeting. At worst, they create a negative impression that impedes their ability to get things done in the future. I would hate to see that happen with your effort and the EDC in general.
on October 7th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Whoops, I may have been unclear. I certainly did NOT mean to imply that we should submit an article to TM w/o going through the selectman. For all the reasons you give, and more, I strongly agree we should work w/ the selectmen.
In fact, what started me on this was a conversation with a Selectmen: I said “In light of global warming, why aren’t you doing anything to get the town to conserve energy?” He said “why aren’t YOU doing anything to get the town to conserve energy?” I wittily replied “er.. uh…” He said “find some like minded folks, bring us a plan, and we may listen very sympathetically.”
I would envision things proceeding as follows:
1) find group of people interested in pursuing. That’s where we are now.
2) Adjust proposal as necessary.
3) Talk to selectmen. Get feedback. Incorporate feedback into plan. Talk to other relevant town stakeholders (FinCom, library committee, water board, possibly ConCom & CPC, others recommended by Selectmen.) Repeat this step as necessary until as many as possible relevant parties (especially selectmen) are on board.
4) (to be performed semi-concurrently with 3). Talk to utility companies. I have some contacts here (which I’d rather not discuss on an open message board) that might be useful. However, this step would best be done with at least a preliminary go-ahead from selectmen (not TM).
5) Assuming we get this far with enough buy-in from various stakeholders, submit something to TM. The something in question would probably largely be written by someone who actually knows how to write laws– and that certainly wouldn’t be me.
I’m currently working on part 1, which is in some sense is the hardest, because it requires me to find people who will not merely agree, but work for this plan, including going before the selectmen.
I’m also sure that whatever gets submitted to TM (if anything) will be considerably changed from what I have here. That’s politics.
). They certainly should be. There are not many people in town who have outside lights that look just like mine and a house front that looks just like mine. When the town sends out a fine, a citizen can challenge it. The town would keep the picture on file, and send a note back with the picture. (Or the picture could be sent out with the original note.) In the vast majority of cases, this would be enough to definitively prove/disprove the claim.
___
As for your other point, I didn’t mean to imply that fines wouldn’t be appealable (gosh, I’ve got to work on clarifying my writing
Obviously, this procedure isn’t failsafe. But it is at least as reliable as the procedures used to prove that someone parked in a no parking zone, ran a red light, failed to wear a seatbelt, or exceeded the speed limit.
The infrastructure required to support this (saving a few hundred pictures) is trivial. The amount of work required to support a few percent appeal rate is also quite low. I am also anticipating that this will not be done by town employees.
Again, a primary purpose of this is to get people to buy their energy from renewable sources– so they won’t have to worry about things like this.
on October 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
As I mentioned above, I’m Californian, so I don’t have the intimate knowledge fo Sudbury to make really informed comments, and lack some moral standing. Still, I wanted to say a few things.
I read through the rest of the document, and I like the idea of promoting competitions between neighborhoods to reduce energy use. Perhaps the EDC could even formalize the competition and offer prizes–to, say, the nieghborhood that reduced its emissions by the greatest percentage (or whatever the best metric is).
But I’m still hung up on the fine thing. Maybe it’ll work, in which case–great, Sudbury might have come up with a model law. There’s some questions, though, that need to be answered first.
Number one, it’s unclear what the point is. In response to Eric and Vicki, above, it was intimated that the whole thing would be low-key, enforced on the honor system, more or less. Why bother, then? Why have a law that’s not respected and not enforced?
I think this is also where the analogy with water-rationing breaks down. People are willing to rat out their neighbors–which is what you’re encouraging, really–because everyone in a community gets their water from a common source. A neighbor’s cheating, then, directly takes water from me, and fromt he people who provide services for me–grocers and farmers, etc.—-so I have an incentive to narc on them. (There’s also a long communitarian tradition associated with water use that helps, too.) It’s different with energy use. If my neighbor runs his lights during the day, I can still turn on my dishwasher that evening. Admittedly, there’s a crisis in both situations, but people understand the crisis of a drought more than they do the crisis of GW. That needs to change, but I think it needs to change before implementing a fine that people will likely ignore.
On the other hand, some of the responses have seemed to suggest that the fine will be extremely aggravating to people who don’t fall in line. I still don’t think many people will turn in their neighbors, but it only takes a few. And there are some serious unaddressed problems here, I think. What if, for example, I do get my energy from only green sources and so run my lights during the day–and I get turned in. What’s the appeal process? Do I hang a sing that announces where I get my energy? (But then: what’s the penalty for putting up false signs?) Doe sthe town have some way to check? Will that be onerous?
You compare the procedure to fining people for traffic violations. But the difference ther eis that the people implementing the fine are peace officers–not just average citizens. Which does seemt o raise the possibility of abus emore.
Anyway, some thoughts. I think it’s great your pushing this, but, like Vicki, I don’t want to see the whole thing hurt by one controversial idea.
on October 9th, 2007 at 12:21 am
ugh! I’ve had my comment eaten twice! Once more.
Carl, I like the idea about havign neighborhoods compete. Perhaps the EDC could formaliza theis and offer prizes.
But, I’m still hung up on the fine thing. There seem to be a number of unanswered questions.
First, in responses to vicki and eric, it was implied that the program would be low-key? What’s the point, then? Low-key won’t change behavior.
Second, reliance on volunteer reporting seems problematic for several reasons. The analogy to citations for parking violations is strained–parking violations are handed out by police, not neighbors, who may just be working out a grudge or some such. Also, I don’t think it’s comparable to drought violations. People have an incentive to turn in violators of water restrictions because everyone uses the same source of water–your cheatign directly affects me. If you run your lights during the day, on the othe rhand, mine still work. (There’s also a strong communitarian strand associated with water use that’s lacking in energy policy.)
Third, in the answer to Dean, it was implied that the fine-policy would used often–with repeat offenders gettign several citations. This is different than later characterizations of the program, so you make want to be more clear about how you see the poilicy working.
Fourth, if it is enforeced more strictly, there are still problems that need to addressed. What if I have grene energy and use my lights during the day–and then get turned in. Will there be an appeal procvess? Do I need to hang a sing on my house saying my energy is green. (Then: what’s the penalty for counterfeit signs?) If the Town is supposed to hanfdle the appeals, how onerous does that become?
Anyway, some thoughts. if it works, great! But I’d hate to see the whole subject hindered by one controversial proposal.
on October 9th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Hmmm… the bit about banning daytime lighting does seem to be controversial. Your point is well taken that it would be unfortunate to see that tank the whole proposal. I must admit that I wasn’t expecting that to be this controversial.
In answer to your specific points
1) The issue isn’t that enforcement would be lax, or low-key. Fines would be strictly enforced. However, there are many ways *written down in advance* for people to get out of them, so in practice they would seldom be payed (even though the law would be strictly followed). You can get out of the fine by buying CFLs or other energy saving devices, and this will save you money. But after the third time you buy $20 worth of CFLs, its going to get a bit annoying, and hopefully you’ll get the point.
2) There are numerous other examples of public-enforcement. The public is encouraged to report HOV lane violators. In some other places, people contact the condo association when their neighbors’ lawns get unruly. Community-based policing is actively used in some places (not Sudbury!) to get townsfolk to report on/fight crack houses, etc. And actually, your decision to run lights in the daytime DOES affect me, quite seriously. It fills the air with dangerous fossil fuel waste, including CO2 and mercury. That’s not a nit-pick; its the whole point of why this proposal is necessary.
3) I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but repeat offenders would get multiple citations (as with any other law). Of course, if they have purchased Green power, then they’re off the hook.
4) A database/spreadsheet would be kept of who has green power (and whether they’ve already had one warning, etc.). Citations would only be sent to those who do not. There are several ways this database could be populated. If cooperation is obtained from utilities, it would be trivial to populate. Otherwise, citizens could send in a copy of a utility bill, either before or after a fine is issued. In either case, it wouldn’t take much effort (by the town) to confirm a utility bill and add a checkmark to a spreadsheet/database.
(Incidentally, I would optimistically expect that only 5 or 10% of the town would buy Green power– and most of the ones that would are not the ones who leave their lights on during the day. So I don’t think this would be much of an issue in practice.)
To be honest, a big part of the purpose of this is to get people to think To understand that, yes, running unnecessary electric lights does real, physical harm to others. For that reason, I wouldn’t mind a debate on the subject, even if I ultimately lose. (Although I’d be careful to design the proposal so that this part can be defeated without bringing the rest down.)
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Carl
on October 9th, 2007 at 7:46 am
BTW, has anyone read this book, which offers a different approach to dealing with GW? I must say that having Gregg Easterbrook recommend it is a turn-off, but there have been some other, more positive reviews.